<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
stringlengths 355
1.02k
|
|---|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession, since if a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession, because if a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```A gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession, as if a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, since if surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, because if surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, as if surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, since if a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, because if a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, as if a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, since if emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, because if emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```Emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, as if emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street, and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, since if a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, because if a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, as if a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.